[Rictor]

the biggest they were designed to take is, AFAIK, a 737.

[karajorma]

I think you're correct there 01010. I saw a program on why the towers collapsed and it said something along those lines.

Don't know about the steel cables but I definately remember that it was the heat from the fire that brought the towers down not the actual impact. As you can see from the footage they survived that.

Originally posted by Rictor
the biggest they were designed to take is, AFAIK, a 737.

Don't know about that. Notice that both towers survived the initial impact and only crumbled later on.

As for the theory that there was an explosion in the basement. Any fool watching the collapse footage can see that the tower started to collapse on the floors that were hit. You've really got to laugh at the idiots who come up with complex theories and yet don't look at the evidence in plain sight.

[Rictor]

yeah, was that the "Anatomy of the Collapse" thing? The official story is that it was the poor fire-protection of the main structure that brought them down, partly because it was not maintained as per saftey standards, and partly because the fuel was jet fuel, which burns much hotter than a normal fire.

Though one has to wonder why access to the debris was so restricted and the conclusion classified in places.

[vyper]

http://www.wtc7.net/

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by 01010


I was under the impression that the towers were actually designed to take an plane impact, can't remember where I read that though, also, the reason I read for the collapse was that there was huge steel cables running the length of the buildings, keeping them stable and supporting the upper floors, when the planes crashed the excess jet fuel burning in the chambers these cables were housed in caused them to melt and the building to lose stability causing the collapse.

Yeah, what I meant was that a lot of less-sane people have claimed the 'controlled' collapse was reminiscent of planned demolitions charges, including seismic shocks... but that this was actually the successive collapse of the floorsabove the damaged ones on the WTC(s), i.e. it falling 'in on itself'.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I don't know aldo, there's a lot of shadyness about the whole thing.

I've still to make my mind up, it's a rather simple way of pushing a nation into a war without having too many questions asked. (relatively speaking)
[/color]

[Rictor]

Not a war, perpetual war. Its the difference between your mom buying you an icecream cone, and your mom buying you an icecream factory.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I don't know aldo, there's a lot of shadyness about the whole thing.

I've still to make my mind up, it's a rather simple way of pushing a nation into a war without having too many questions asked. (relatively speaking)
[/color]

I just think the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

[Corsair]

Personally, I hate to think that any President of the United States, no matter how much I disagree with his policy, would ever, EVER, kill a few thousand of his own people to further a political agenda and consolidate power.
Then again, there are crazies in the world. But that theory is just a little to crazy for me.

[Rictor]

you make the mistake of thinking that someone who is able to get themselves elected President has a conscience. I've said it before and I'll say it again: most empires are run the same way organized crime outfits are; psychopaths at the top, with an army of greedy, afraid, stupid and/or indoctrinated grunts below.

[Corsair]

Yeah, but I like to delude myself into thinking that the leaders of the country stick to the ideals upon which it was founded on. I'm like being in denial. So sue me.

[Ford Prefect]

Ideals upon which countries are founded do not last. This is not because people are "evil," but simply because in the natural course of human events, populations will shift their ideologies for whatever reason. If the right words are used and the right examples cited, any action a country takes can be made to be in keeping with "tradition."

[Flipside]

The only thing that makes me wonder is the fact that, if I were Bush, and were planning something like this, I'd make it happen about now, just before the elections, though that probably would have raised even more questions.

I think Bush would sacrifice 3000 people for the chance of a net profit. Making decisions like that it what being a leader is about, Bush has just twisted it round in his head to justify the means.

However was this set up? I don't know, WTC7 is an interesting 'blip' in the whole thing, as was the fact that the WTC was apparently only just insured against Terrorist attack a few months before. And the fact that structural Reports had stated the buildings may have to be dismantled in 20 years anyway....

I won't think the American government made it happen, but I wouldn't put it past them to know about it several months in advance, insure the Towers and let it happen, as an excuse.

[Rictor]

Mossad knew, that much is clear. They were literally in the next motel room over from one of the hijackers. As well, an investigation into terrorism and bin Laden in particular was axed just days before 9/11.

Here's an interesting bit of fiction vaguely related to the subject. Its also a good solid story in and of itself. Highly recommended (start from the first chapter)...I only wish it was updated more regularly.
http://theamericanbook.blogspot.com

[vyper]

[q]let it happen, as an excuse.[/q]

That seems the likeliest explanation.

[Gank]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Didn't read all that site, but one thing that immediately stands out as bollocks is the thing about the Twin Towers collapse being odd... the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers has already explained the towers could not handle an impact as happeneded on 9/11, and that the damage to the impacted floors meant that the upper floors were collapsing onto them, i.e. causing the rapid collapse.

Hmmm, doubt that, the WTC was built specificly to withstand the impact of a 707, equal in size to the 757s which hit them. If the guy who designed them is saying different somethings suss. Also the floors collapsing in on top of each other wouldnt have brought down the whole tower, the central core which was only tied in to the floor with trusses would have remained standing for a while anyways.

As for the US government allowing it to happen, certainly plausible, people dont remember the last time the WTC was hit by terrorists the bombmaker was an FBI informant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_bombing_attack_of_the_WTC
As for Mossad:
http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

How can you document an event unless you know its going to happen?
Dont really like this ste but the article itself is well supported with sources:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Btw anyone who thinks the US government isnt capable of planning attacks on its own citizens should read this document:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Among the plans laid out in it is the use of unmanned airliners to attack american targets as a pretext for the invasion of Cuba 40 years ago.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Gank


Hmmm, doubt that, the WTC was built specificly to withstand the impact of a 707, equal in size to the 757s which hit them. If the guy who designed them is saying different somethings suss. Also the floors collapsing in on top of each other wouldnt have brought down the whole tower, the central core which was only tied in to the floor with trusses would have remained standing for a while anyways.
 

They designed it to withstand a 707 impact, yes.  But this wasn't a 707 impact.

The structural engineer explicitly stated that they had never anticipated the intentional collision of 2 airliners upon both towers (remember, there's additional seismic shocks here, for one thing).

RE707 vs 757;
quick check;
707 min operating weight;  55,589kg
757 min operating weight; 64,590kg

Crucially, the fuel load onboard the colliding plane was not accounted for in the initial designs. I'm also not sure if current jet fuel is of a higher octane than that used when the WTC was designed.  Regardless, it was the fuel and fire that ensured the towers fell.

Also, the explosion of the impact blew away fireproofing around said crucial tresses (said fireproofing had never been tested, and these tests may not have been adequate given the speed and intensity of high-octane jet fuel fires).

Maybe you should actually try checking these things out next time?

EDIT; oh, and I believe the design would not have been made under  the assumption that the aircraft was trying to hit the towers.  The 2nd plane, in particular, was diving so fast that it risked breaking up before it impacted.

EDIT2; the kinetic force upon the Twin towers had been calculated as roughly equivalent to 0.2kt ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1550326.stm ).  Same article also points out the damage that falling debris would have caused (which some people interpret the seismic shocks from as being explosions to demolish the towers)

[Clave]

Yep, the fireproofing was the weak point.  It had been badly applied, and not maintained for years, there were many areas with no fireproofing at all.  The steel got hot enough to sag (not melt) and then the structural integrity was lost.  It seems likely that if the fireproofing had resisted the initial blast, then the would have been no collapse...

[Gank]

Originally posted by aldo_14

They designed it to withstand a 707 impact, yes.  But this wasn't a 707 impact.  

no they werent, they were actually 767s.

Originally posted by aldo_14
RE707 vs 757;
quick check;
707 min operating weight;  55,589kg
757 min operating weight; 64,590kg

Not really relevant, seeing how they were 767s, although no airliners fly at min weight anyways. Both flights were not fully loaded nor carried a full load of fuel, I'd guess there actual weight was below what was designed for.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Crucially, the fuel load onboard the colliding plane was not accounted for in the initial designs. I'm also not sure if current jet fuel is of a higher octane than that used when the WTC was designed.  Regardless, it was the fuel and fire that ensured the towers fell.

Government estimates gave the amount of fuel onboard each plane at 10,000 gallons, thats roughly a ten foot cubed tank. Presuming the wtc was designed to take a fully loaded 707 thats less than half what its supposed to be able to withstand.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Also, the explosion of the impact blew away fireproofing around said crucial tresses (said fireproofing had never been tested, and these tests may not have been adequate given the speed and intensity of high-octane jet fuel fires).

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

Originally posted by aldo_14
Maybe you should actually try checking these things out next time?

Checking what out, the only thing that you've said that can actually be checked out is the min weight of 707 and 757s which in itself is meaningless.

Originally posted by aldo_14
EDIT; oh, and I believe the design would not have been made under  the assumption that the aircraft was trying to hit the towers.  The 2nd plane, in particular, was diving so fast that it risked breaking up before it impacted.

The second plane impacted at 590mph, almost 20mph less than the cruise speed of a 707. It also crashed into the tower at an angle, and as can be clearly seen in the videos a lot of its fuel exits the far side of the tower in a massive fireball.

Seeing as you're obviously well informed on this matter Aldo, why did WTC7 collapse?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Gank

*snipped for brevity*

Seeing as you're obviously well informed on this matter Aldo, why did WTC7 collapse?

NB: 757 was Pentagon.  you did say 757 in your previous post, so I was assuming you were correct in that.

Fire, possibly - http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/default.htm (specifically, diesel fuel from backup generators).  There's also been a suggestion that the NYFD demolished the building because they couldn't contain the fire http://sirdave.com/pullit.mpg

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/
(specifically of reference;
The World Trade Center was designed for an impact of Boeing 707-320 rather than Boeing 767-320. But note that the maximum takeoff weight of that older, less effcient, aircraft is only 15% less than that of Boeing 767-200. Besides, the maximum fuel tank capacity of that aircraft is only 4% less. These differences are well within the safety margins of design. So the observed response of the towers proves the correctness of the original dynamic design. What was not considered in design was the temperature that can develop in the ensuing fire. Here the lulling experience from 1945 might have been deceptive; that year, a two-engine bomber (B-25), flying in low clouds to Newark at about 400 km/h, hit the Empire State Building (381 m tall, built in 1932) at the 79th floor (278 m above ground)—the steel columns (much heavier than in modern buildings) suffered no significant damage, and the fire remained confined essentially to two floors only (Levy and Salvadori 1992).)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
http://www.scifidimensions.com/Oct01/Collapse_of_WTC.pdf

I can't find a specific quote from the designer of the WTC (I have heard one on TV as mentioned earlier, but the intenet is full of ****e on this topic)

If you honestly believe that the WTC was destroyed by a set of demolitions charges on the underside of the building, rather than an unanticiapted level of impact and fire, then that's your choice.  But I think it's a steaming pile of ****e.